No longer will OSAS vx OSNAS be allowed to be debated, argued, or discussed in theology forum. Too much time is required to monitor and rescources used to debate this subject which hasn't been definitively decided in 3,000 years.

You might really appreciate Jonathan Cahn's "The Paradigm"!! I still haven't gotten all the way through it. Borrowing it digitally through the library... But it is POWERFUL in showing Biblical History, and ramifications for this present age!!

I do...
But it takes time for me to put it together for y'all. And since I am posting this for others to learn and repeat to others I want it very accurate and clear...not necessarily resource quality...but good enough for everyone to remember and have it acceptable to recite.

I've set myself up to discuss the last two to 4... maybe 5 Bibles.
And when I fly through them it will be amazing at how you understand why and how they were created.

The Bibles we use today can be one of the most accurate translations or a paraphrased version...but they all will descend from the work of the Bibles I have discussed. And understanding that...it will give you an insight on the one in your hands.

OK...Just needed a break for a bit...got my studying done and we are good to go.

Gotta back up a second and look at things from another perspective for a minute.
The Roman Empire was fading fast. But it was trying to hang in there.
Luther's "discovery" of scripture was a huge undoing for the Roman Empire.

Germany (and its rather fluidly moving borders due to all the wars) was a huge financial loss to the Roman Empire. (It borders England)
Spain was also a huge source of revenue for the Empire.

Trying to keep in mind that Politics and civil Governments were a function of the Church is kinda backwards in our minds of today...but then it was a reality. The only place that it really didn't function in this fashion was Switzerland. (They never cared and still don't today...completely apathetic to the world around them and rather self absorbed...but since their land was all either up or down (mountainous region) nobody had enough concern to actually conquor the place...and since it's rescources were rather limited...no one bothered.

So When John Calvin set up his church in Switzerland...nobody cared. He created a republic...again nobody cared. When he began exporting his ideas to other areas...now people cared.
And it wasn't so much that people actually believed John Calvin's notes. (They did because no one had an answer to these notes in the margins of the Geneva Bible) it was the result of the notion that Civil Governments were a function of the Church that had everyone up in arms. It appeared that John Calvin was having a guerrilla style propaganda campaign against all English speaking countries.
(Switzerland is right next door to Germany which was flush with resources and learning from the Renaissance. ) The Roman Catholic (Catholic meaning "General") church had lost many of it's schools and higher education centers there. The New learning created a "holier than thou" type atmosphere with each group trying to show how they were tougher on sin than their neighbors. (Which is why there were so many wars with the different countries)
While English bibles were all the Rage at the time...the Germans and German speaking religious groups already had copies of scriptures running about in German translated from original manuscripts. (Which is where the sources of the manuscripts came from for the English bibles) They never had to rely upon the Latin Vulgate.
The Gutenberg Bible may have been in Latin...but the commentaries were all in German.
France also had considerable means...and a lot of higher learning there as well. Some of the oldest copies of scriptures in a language other than Latin were in French. German Second...and the last one was Spanish. (They were rather loyal to the Catholic church...considering "Dad" was in charge of the Roman Empire)

So...

When Elizabeth commissioned the Bishop's Bible...ti was a resounding failure.
Elizabeth replaced her Father's "Great Bible" with this translation...but instead of going back to original manuscripts it relied upon the Latin Vulgate. So of course it was error filled and conflicted greatly with the Geneva Bible which was already known to everyone. It was revamped several times...but to no avail. It never became affordable and widely available to everyone the way that the Geneva Bible had become. It wasn't until the KJV became popular that the Geneva Bible was replaced.

King James Bible.
OK...Elizabeth died in 1603 childless and "virginal". There was a whole cult centered on her virginity...yeah people are a bit nuts.
King James IV of Scotland (Grandchild of Henry 8th) became James I when he took over the Throne of England.
Of Course it was Robert Barker (Royal printing press guy) who printed the Bibles.

Elizabeth I had courted both Catholics and Protestants alike...she favored a blend of both worlds in her day....and defended both in one fashion or another.

In 1604 (after one year of securing his position on the Throne) James convened what was known as Hampton Court Conference.
Now all those Geneva Bibles had an influence upon the society. It created a group known as Puritans. They were "Calvinists" in that they held a "reformed" theology and an absolute hatred of all things Catholic. They wished for more removal of Catholic doctrines and practices and wanted a more pure faith. (notice a separation of the church from civil matters...but not as much as was coming in the New World)
And all these Puritans wanted their beliefs respected...and weren't thrilled with the Bishop's Bible. They wanted a translation that more reflected their beliefs in the Church of England.
(Kinda odd considering that Elizabeth I in her later years was selling guns and ammunition to Morocco, a decidedly Muslim nation at war with the Catholic Church)

King James gave several directives to the council.
The New Translation:
It had to continue to give the Episcopal and Ecclesiastical nature of the Anglican Church it's authorization.
It was to retain similarities to the Bishop's Bible.
It also had to reflect similarities to the Geneva Bible.
It had to go back to original manuscripts as much as possible.
It wasn't to have any of those annoying "glosses" as the Geneva Bible contained.

But it was going to have it's limitations too.
The Psalter...from which much of the church services were formed was still going to rely upon Miles Coverdale's work.

Now the Catholic Church caught on to the behavior of the Calvinists...they had already published an English translated Bible called the Douay Rheims bible with it's Catholic leanings in it's passages...but considering the angst of the general population against all things Catholic...it pretty much failed in it's intent. But it was kept in service (updated) until the creation of The Jerusalem Bible...yes...that Jerusalem Bible.

Now the translators worked for free on the King James Bible...but they were all promised nice and juicy jobs after they were done. There were 54 translators authorized but only 47 did the work. (the limitations and the limitations for the focus of the translating work was disagreeable to some of the scholars...as if it was a new concept of heresy)
(And to this day Matthew 19 is still a mess...nobody wants to translate it correctly reflecting what was said and why it was said...as well as certain Old Testament and New Testament sections that reflect political leanings of what should have happened versus what did happen with Ordained Clergy and King's behavior...The Baptists still argue over all of this and take the wrong side. But even more damage was done by Tyndale and his notions of translating to this day. IE. Jesus was never a carpenter's son...he was a construction worker)

But the work was completed in 1611 and published....and immediately criticized. The leading Hebrew scholar of England was not included in the list of scholars because of his lack of ability to get along and work with others...and the different sections of the Bible were translated by teams and cross checked with other teams. Hugh Broughton (Hebrew Scholar) said, "he would rather be torn in pieces by wild horses than that this abominable translation (KJV) should ever be foisted upon the English people"
It became known as the "bible without notes"...nor did it have the Pictures that the other bibles contained (except at the beginning of the Old and New Testaments)
There was a "he" and "she" first printing of Ruth 3:15. I'll let you figure out which was done first and subsequently fixed.
And since the King's printer was broke and so heavily in debt...there aren't that many copies out there. There were a couple of other printers that joined in with Robert Barker...but they got into a financial feud that lasted a few decades...with lawsuits court fillings and etc. And Robert was not going to share his original copy. So it went unprinted in volume. The Geneva Bible continued to be imported from Amsterdam in volume...until 1644. The Authorized Version (what they called King James Version) wasn't even adopted into Scotland until 1679. They stuck with the Geneva Bible as well.
But printer's were a somewhat notorious sort...they stole things and recreated them as they had spare paper and ink and needed to sell printed materials. (which was still rather expensive and a very limited clientele)
And such things were of course given to error....such as the Wicked Bible "thou shalt commit adultery" with the "not" not included...this got printer's fined and imprisoned and all kinds of things.
And by 1760 they had had enough of all the misprints and outright fabrications of the scriptures. (of course King James had long since perished) (The arguing over who had the legal right to printing the scriptures had pretty much destroyed the bible and all the thieves had taken over).
The universities of Oxford and Cambridge got together and revamped the whole thing.
And thus a new updated version with standardized fashion of spelling common words (didn't have one until then) and standardized type of how the letters were supposed to be formed (didn't have one of those either) 1629 and 1638 versions had seen a few updated revisions with better readings of the Hebrew...but with all those printers having a field day with inaccuracies they went unnoticed.
and by 1769 they created and published a brand new edition of the Authorized Edition of the scriptures. Some of the idiosyncrasies of Oxford spellings were dumped...and notes and italic usages were dumped...
And largely it hasn't seen any changes since that time because of the mass marketing and printing of the Bible in the 19th Century. (King George really didn't have anything to do with it even though he was king at that time...)

What is rather amazing was that in the 1800's with the discovery of new manuscripts and better knowledge of translating and the constantly changing English language the Revised Edition was created and adopted by the Anglican Church...reluctantly, but still adopted.

Modern Bibles....
Today most modern and accurate translations of the Bible are based in part on the United Bible Society (UBS) version of the New Testament Scriptures and a variation of what used to be known as Biblica Hebraica Stutengartensia. (BHS) but now is known as something else and I can't remember what version is currently being used.
These are collections of different manuscripts from Jerome's Latin Vulgate to the Sinaticus and the Syriac and the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Masoretic Texts and all the many oldest and closest to original autographs manuscripts available. The writing are compared and copyists mistakes are recognized and categorized and the collected works create a more accurate collection of the original language manuscripts than ever assembled before. IOW where we might not have the Autographs we have a pretty good idea as to what was originally written by the collection of manuscripts.

And from these collections we gain all modern translations of scriptures with their varying denominational bends.

Each denomination has various traditions and identifying characteristics based "in scripture" as they have decided to translate it. Softening the language in certain areas while focusing and enhancing the language in other areas.
Most translations have kept some of Tyndale's habits of translating alive and well.
Even though these things have been known to be false for hundreds of years now. Jesus' carpentry skills for example are highly questionable...but his stone masonry skills aren't. But at the time Tyndale was translating a Stone mason was a high skill construction worker...almost on par with Goldsmith or Silversmith. But a carpenter was a very common construction skill. (Which is what he wished to convey)
Also the inability to communicate the words and grammar of the various languages into English the translators tend to follow Tyndale's style. Some grammar forms don't exist in English...nor does sex of verbs and nouns. In many cases the language is purely idiomatic or metaphoric in nature and has no English equivalent. So...the translators actually cannot make a real, true word-for-word translation.